Blogs

It took a while, but my big essay on Paul is finally available as an honest to goodness paperback. These Are Two Covenants: Reconsidering Paul on the Mosaic Law is available at Create Space (sentence is a link). (In a few days, it should also be available from Amazon’s main store, but unless you have other stuff to put in your Amazon cart, please purchase from CreateSpace if you can – the commission structure is a lot more generous for me.)

For more info on this book, you can take a peek at its page at pactumbooks.com, my site for Pactum Reformanda Publishing (that I formed back in 2002 to publish Feed My Lambs). I’ll be revamping and updating the Pactum site over the next couple of days – presently, it doesn’t even have a link to the CreateSpace store page, which just went live. (Will correct that shortly.)

It’s often been noted that in Revelation, Satan repeatedly counterfeits what God is doing: e.g. the saints are sealed upon their (Rev 7.3; 9.4; 14.1), so in turn the beast requires his mark to be upon the foreheads of his followers (Rev 13.16; 14.9 etc).

There is also an interesting juxtaposition between the devil’s wrath and that of God. When the devil, who is the accuser, is cast down from heaven, he comes upon the earth in “great wrath,” because he knows that his time is short (Rev 12.12). In contrast, Rev 15.7 speaks of the seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God, who lives forever and ever. The devil’s wrath is temporary; his time is short. But the eternal God  has authority over the lake of fire, which will have torment “day and night forever and ever” (Rev 20.10).

Satan is a pitiful parody of the Most High God.

A lot of discussion in Pauline exegesis over the past couple of decades is whether this common phrase in Galatians (Greek: pistis Christou) is subjective (“faith of Christ”) or objective (“faith in Christ”).

“Faith of Christ” is the older translation found in e.g. the King James Version, although the translators probably were just being woodenly literal rather than making a judgment call. Most newer translations make the interpretation for us and just have it “faith in Christ.”

For reasons I won’t get into here, several years ago while studying Romans, I became quite convinced of the subjective genitive position. That is, what is in view in the phrase as such is the pistis (faith or faithfulness) of Christ Himself. This pistis of Christ in turn calls forth our responsive faith – hence the gospel is from faith (i.e. Christ’s) to faith (i.e. ours), according to a literal reading of Romans 1.17.

At any rate, while the exact pistis Christou phrase is not used in this instance, it occurs to me that a comparison of Gal 5.6 and 2.20 appears to lend further support to the subjective genitive. In 5.6, Paul says that what counts is not circumcision, but faith working through love, while in 2.20, he has written that the life he now lives in the flesh he lives by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. The proper understanding of Paul’s exhortations regarding faith and love in chapter 5 seems to have to do with entering into a participation in Christ. And so just as the faith of Christ worked itself out in the greatest embodiment of love – His self-giving unto death – so the believer’s faith is to be worked out through loving service to others (cf 5.13).

Now I come to the passage I’m preaching on this Sunday, so I’ll just share the notes I’ve put together for myself. The result is that the writing is probably sketchier than my earlier posts. Lots of stuff to work with here, so my big challenge is reflecting on how this is to come together homiletically in a way that captures the essence of what is going on in the chapter.

Overall background

The man-meeting-woman-at-well theme is recurring in Scripture and is a marital motif. John has already had the wedding in Cana, but more directly the Baptizer has just finished calling Jesus the Bridegroom in 3.29. Jesus is Yahweh, calling Israel and Judah back from their harlotry, and refashioning them into one Bride, as promised by the prophets.

There is intended parallel and antithesis with the Nicodemus meeting in previous chapter. Both meetings are necessary and complementary, which is perhaps why it is now that Jesus “must go through Samaria” (4.4), whereas Jews would normally bypass it by going around, through Perea.  Nicodemus stands in for the Jews (Judah) as “the teacher of Israel” (3.10) and reflects a great deal more knowledge, as “salvation is of the Jews” (4.22); the woman stands in for Samaritans (northern kingdom of Israel). Explains the contrasts: Nicodemus is knowledgeable and respectable and meets Jesus in Jerusalem, while the woman is not privy to Judah’s faith, is not particularly respectable, and meets Jesus in an otherwise unknown location (although it is not very far away from Shechem): this is the present state of Judea and Samaria, respectively. In both cases, Jesus is alone with His conversation partner: Nicodemus comes to Jesus by night, and Jesus speaks to the woman while the disciples are away buying food in the town. The times are diametrically opposite: night vs noon (sixth hour).

John 3 is the first encounter between Jesus and one of the Jewish leaders; and John 4 is the first and primary recorded encounter between Jesus and Samaritans. Thus the two passages together constitute the beginning of Jesus’ official/representative program to fulfill the reunion prophecies of e.g. Ezekiel 37 etc. He goes to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (cf Mt 10.6; 15.24), both of Judah and what is left of “Ephraim.”

Read the rest of this entry »

John 3 is arguably one of the most misused chapters in the Bible, partly because it is so temptingly quotable that the overall context gets ignored very easily. It is important that one keep in mind the earlier observations I made in connection with chapter 1: the salvation-historical themes are very much at the heart of what Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus is about, and yet most discussion of the chapter ignores them. Not good.

Read the rest of this entry »

Am going to be much more cursory here. The primary events in the chapter are the water-to-wine sign at Cana, and the temple cleansing sign in Jerusalem.

Wedding themes are going to recur in John, so we need to be ready for it. The wedding scene in chapter 2 is not merely coincidental; John the Baptizer will speak of Jesus as the Bridegroom in 3.29, and there are also marital themes in chapter 4 that shouldn’t be missed.

The event in Cana is not just a sign in the sense of “miracle” – the Bible doesn’t generally use “sign” terminology that way, and many other miracles occurred in e.g. Elisha’s ministry without getting that label. In fact, Jesus’ temple action is also a “sign,” and it involves no recorded miracle at all.

Read the rest of this entry »

I am departing from my usual custom and am actually planning to preach from the lectionary text this Sunday, which is the account of the woman at the well (John 4). In connection with that, I’ve been going through the Gospel of John again from the beginning and am sharing a few scattered thoughts.

One of the first things that we need to unlearn is the unfortunate assumption that what is going on in John is all about our systematic theological category of “regeneration.” Although the Gospel’s themes are related to that, that approach dehistoricizes the events of the Gospel and robs us of much of the richness of the biblical backdrop.

Read the rest of this entry »

This post is not an essay, and is not intended to be cohesive in the least. I am preaching on the Lord’s Supper tomorrow (Lord’s Day 28 of the Heidelberg Catechism), and in connection with that I have been going over this passage again in 1 Corinthians. These are thus simply my rough notes on the passage (early on much is not even complete sentences), and I don’t have time or inclination to set them into more orderly form at the moment. Still, I thought someone might find them of benefit even in their present form.

Read the rest of this entry »

In mulling over the matter of how AD 70 relates to the final judgment, I think I would go so far as to suggest that Jerusalem was in some senses the capital of the old kosmos (usually translated “world” but often having a strong eschatological sense in Paul, approaching something like “this present age”), and that in certain definitive ways that world was brought to judgment in AD 70.

Remember that in Galatians, Paul speaks of Torah as one of the stoicheia (“elements”) of the kosmos, parallel to idolatry etc. Thus I don’t think it is a stretch to say that the judgment on Jerusalem signifies a wider judgment.

But it is utterly wrong to think that wider judgment was simply accomplished en toto in AD 70. To the contrary, what we learn from Galatians about the stoicheia points in a very different direction. Torah stands alongside idolatry and other “elements” of the world (see e.g. Gal 4.8-10).

And while it is true that AD 70 started a chain of events that abolished idolatry in a lot of places… it didn’t end it. It destroyed Jerusalem… but it didn’t destroy all the other kosmos-cities that resist the rule of the Son.

There was a definitive judgment on the stoicheia in AD 70. Well, there was a definitive judgment on the stoicheia at the cross and resurrection too… but the stoicheia of the old kosmos still remain. The new heavens and new earth which we may enjoy today (for those in Christ, there is a new creation, 2 Cor 5.17) is a tiny earnest/down payment, and is only enjoyed in the midst of the old heavens and old earth. (Cf Rom 8 in context: we’ve been redeemed, but we still await the redemption of the body.)

And therefore, to take AD 70 as the be-all and end-all is to miss the whole point. AD 70 is a real and truly significant event in salvation history. But it is a very small part for a much larger whole that even to this day has not come. The full coming of the new covenant is not completed until all the enemies have been put down – including the last enemy, Death (1 Cor 15.26).

AD 70 is a marker that points directly to the final judgment and consummation.

I’m doing some exegetical work in John 15, and in translating the Greek I paid careful attention to verse 11 for the first time: “These things I have spoken to you, so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.”

I had always naturally assumed this verse was speaking of fullness of joy in a quantitative sense (full joy, lots of joy), but in considering the passage and its parallels, I’m led in a different direction.

The term full is the Greek plerow, frequently translated “fulfill.” Meanwhile, the context in John 15 is about the benefits of remaining in Christ, the vine, versus failing to remain in Him, and thus being unfruitful, and cast out as branches and burned.

There is a striking correspondence to all of this in the parable of the soils; in Matthew 13.20-21, Jesus says that when the Word falls on stony soil, the hearer responds with joy, but after enduring only for a while (proskairos, temporary – the opposite of remaining), he falls away in the face of tribulation or persecution.

I suggest therefore, that what Jesus is saying is that He has spoken this word of admonition, so that the disciples would indeed remain in Him, and that thus their joy would not merely be temporary, but that it would find its “full fulfillment” in bearing ultimate fruit that remains (Jn 15.16). In other words, the “fullness” of joy is not so much quantitative as telic: that is, that it reaches its proper goal of permanence.

Evangelical defeatism is a failure of Biblical perspective. After all, the risen Lord Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and on earth and has been made head over all things for the Church; he is the ruler of the kings of the earth and he is currently putting his enemies beneath his feet; he has presumably asked the Father for the nations as his inheritance and the ends of the earth as his possession – and so he will receive them. All nations will bow to Jesus and all kings will serve him and his kingdom will grow to become the largest plant in the garden with the nation-birds finding rest in its branches. His kingdom is the stone which crushed the kingdoms of men in Daniel 2 and which is growing to become a mountain-empire which fills the whole earth. He is the firstborn from among the dead and therefore it is right that in all things he has the first place. He has been highly exalted and not only will every knee bow to him but every knee should bow to him.

Evangelical defeatism is a failure of historical perspective. After all, the statistics are out there. It took 1400 years for 1% of the world’s population to become Christians and then another 360 years for that to double to 2%. Another 170 years saw that grow from 2% to 4% and then, between 1960 and 1990 the proportion of the world’s population made up of Bible-believing Christians rose from 4% to 8%. Now, in 2007, one third of the world’s population confesses that Jesus is Lord and 11% of the world’s population are “evangelical” Christians. The evangelical church is growing twice as fast as Islam and three times as fast as the world’s population. South America is turning Protestant faster than Continental Europe did in the sixteenth century. South Koreans reckon that they can evangelize the whole of North Korea within five years once that country opens up. And then there’s the Chinese church consisting of tens of millions of Christians who have learned to pray, who have confidence in Scripture, who know about spiritual warfare, have been schooled in suffering and are qualified to rule. One day in the next century that Church – tens of millions of Christians trained to die – will be released into global mission and our prayers for the fall of Islam will be answered.

David Field, “Samuel Rutherford and the Confessionally Christian State”

Just a note that a small Brazilian publisher has requested to translate Feed My Lambs into Portuguese and publish it.

The arrangement has not yet been finalized. Stay tuned.

Hays definitely lies to my left theologically, but I have often found him spot-on, and he has some excellent insights here. I would especially draw attention to the matter of seeking to “get at” a story “behind” the text rather than dealing with how the material actually comes to us in the biblical canon, e.g. The Prodigal Son. (Pay special attention about 60% of the way through, where Hays deals with the unique and harmonizing voices of the Gospel writers.)

At long last, my extensive essay on Paul and the law, These Are Two Covenants: Reconsidering Paul on the Mosaic Law, is available!

I was sort of commissioned to write this piece back in 2004, but the book in which it was to appear fell on hard times and was not published. I later had a contract with another publisher to have it released on its own, but it fell victim to cutbacks. Knowing that I do not have present resources to publish in paperback as I did with Feed My Lambs, I decided on my first ebook-only (PDF) release.

You can get more information and learn how to purchase by going to my Pactum Reformanda Publishing web site.

life had just begun
death came in the door
walkin in the sun
why’d you eat that for?

we may be tryin here
but we are cryin tears
mmm… we’re dyin here

finally had a son
from his barren wife
are we really done
cause now he takes a knife

we may be tryin here….

kingdom’s just begun
so began to seem
then all the soldiers come
and the disciples leave

we may be tryin here….

then in our fears
behind these walls
Life appears
the Lord of all

see His wounded side
those familiar eyes
yes it’s Him all right
now glorified

so here’s our death and sin
but we live in Him
mmm… and we’ll rise again

mmm… we’re livin here….

[Written Good Friday, 2010]

It’s interesting that a lot of evangelical churches do stress participation in worship. But usually they don’t mean participation which everyone can engage in (and certainly not all at once, i.e. together). They mean “doing something at the front” – e.g. a skit, playing an instrument etc. It’s not said directly, but to be part of the congregation is not considered participatory.

What therefore happens is that the congregation becomes an audience, and inclusion in “the action” requires getting up on stage (and yes, that is actually what the platform is frequently referred to as, which I think is telling). But all this means is that (1) people are performing, many of whom aren’t really qualified to lead worship in a meaningful way; and (2) those not semi-skilled enough to do that are essentially non-participants; they are “outside the action.”

But worship is something that the whole congregation actively does, and giving bit parts “at the front” is a poor substitute for understanding that “the action” doesn’t happen on stage. The action occurs within the dialogue between God and all His people. When the proclamation of forgiveness, the sermon, and the benediction are given, that is God’s time to speak, and we all engage in hearing Him; when we pray, sing, and confess our faith, it is our time to speak, and He hears us. And when we commune, we eat together with one another and with God. In short, biblically speaking, we are all involved in the action, and for the whole properly-ordered service.

Just an observation triggered by a blog comment by my friend Rogers, as well as by a discussion we had last night in Bible study.

New post on the Biblical Horizons blog on 2 Corinthians 5.21.

In looking again at Leviticus 8, I noticed that in the baptism>anointing sequence, only Aaron gets anointed at first. Then, after the sin offering and ascension offerings are completed, not only Aaron but also his sons are anointed.

That fascinates me in connection with the sequence of things in the Gospels and Acts. Jesus is baptized by John and immediately anointed by the Spirit. But while many others are baptized, both by John and by Jesus’ disciples, no one else gets anointed.

Jesus becomes the sin offering on the cross and completes His role of ascension offering when He ascends to heaven. It is only then, after the completion of the sin and ascension offerings, that He pours out the Spirit and the “sons” are anointed.

One of Peter Leithart’s chief insights is that a priest is a palace servant.

In preparing a sermon on Lord’s Day 12 for this Sunday (by way of Revelation 1 – which, by the way, focuses upon God’s people as servants in 1.1 and as a priesthood in 1.7), this got me reflecting on the question of how the high priest relates to this. If a priest is a palace servant, what is a “high” palace servant?

This in turn led me to think about the predominant Servant theme in Isaiah, a rabbit trail that turned out to be helpful, although I’m not entirely sure yet where to go with it. Read the rest of this entry »

I suggest a moratorium on new Christmas hymns, until we all learn the Magnificat and the Benedictus and the Nunc Dimittis so much by heart that they seep out our fingers at the keyboard, until we instinctively sing of Jesus’ birth like Mary, like Zecharias, like Simeon.

Another gem from Leithart.